On Monday 15 December 2008 11:48:58 Sergei Golovan wrote: > So the questions are: Are my suspicions correct, and ejabberd upstream > indeed violates GNU GPL, or am I wrong? If they are then which is the > best action to do (Should we continue to distribute ejabberd and > therefore promote it? Should I contact FSF with this question?)? Just a comment: if the upstream authors actually own all the copyrights (e.g. there are no 3rd-party contributors), they can legally release any sort of binaries, etc, even if no one else can. However, even if this is the case, releasing artifacts without source in this manner is bad form. As far as Debian is concerned, we don't use the binary installer, we use the source. So I don't think this is a Debian issue, and I don't think Debian should care what other things the upstream is doing. But I think it's a Free and Open Source Software Community issue and members of that community (including individuals involved with Debian) ought to work with upstream to help them acknowledge and rectifty the situation. -- Wesley J. Landaker <wjl@icecavern.net> <xmpp:wjl@icecavern.net> OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.